NRS
100.085 Deposits in names of two or more persons; fact that account held
in joint tenancy does not preclude person named on account from committing or
being prosecuted for exploitation.
1. When a deposit has been made in the
name of the depositor and one or more other persons, and in a form intended to
be paid or delivered to any one of them, or the survivor or survivors of them,
the deposit is the property of the persons as joint tenants. If an account is
intended to be held in joint tenancy, the account or proceeds from the account
are owned by the persons named, and may be paid or delivered to any of them
during the lifetime of all, or to the survivor or survivors of them after the
death of less than all of the tenants, or the last of them to survive, and
payment or delivery is a valid and sufficient release and discharge of the
depository.
2. The making of a deposit in the form of
a joint tenancy vests title to the deposit in the survivor or survivors.
3. When a deposit has been made in the
name of the depositor and one or more other persons, and in a form to be paid
or delivered to the survivor or survivors of them, but one or more of the other
persons is not authorized to withdraw from the deposit during the life of the
depositor or depositors, the person or persons so restricted have no present
interest in the deposit, but upon the death of the last depositor entitled to
withdraw, the deposit is presumed to belong to the survivor or survivors.
Unless written notice of a claim against the deposit has been given by a
survivor or a third person before payment or delivery, payment or delivery to a
survivor is a valid and sufficient release and discharge of the depository.
4. For the purposes of this section,
unless a depositor specifically provides otherwise, the use by the depositor of
any of the following words or terms in designating the ownership of an account
indicates the intent of the depositor that the account be held in joint
tenancy:
(a) Joint;
(b) Joint account;
(c) Jointly held;
(d) Joint tenants;
(e) Joint tenancy; or
(f) Joint tenants with right of survivorship.
5. As set forth in NRS 200.50957, the mere fact that an
account of an older person or a vulnerable person is held in joint tenancy
pursuant to this section does not, in and of itself, convey to all persons
named on the account legal ownership of the account and the deposits and
proceeds of the account in a manner that would preclude such a person from committing
or being prosecuted for exploitation involving the control or conversion of any
deposits or proceeds of the account if the facts and circumstances demonstrate
that exploitation has occurred, regardless of whether the intent to commit
exploitation arose before, during or after the creation of the account.
6. As used in this section:
(a) “Exploitation” has the meaning ascribed to it
in NRS 200.5092.
(b) “Older person” has the meaning ascribed to it
in NRS 200.5092.
(c) “Vulnerable person” has the meaning ascribed
to in NRS 200.5092.
(Added to NRS by 1977,
805; A 1995,
1054; 2023,
1405)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1977–2018 · leading case:
Natko v. State, 435 P.3d 680 (Nev. 2018).
Natko v. State, 435 P.3d 680 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 60× “" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Walch v. State, 909 P.2d 1184 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 6× “00, the theft is a felony. NRS 205.0835. Walch argues that funds deposited in the two accounts became her and Nell's joint legal property and that she therefore had lawful authority to withdraw them and use *1188 them as she wished.”
Starr v. Rousselet, 877 P.2d 525 (Nev. 1994).
· cites it 14× “NRS 100.085 provides, in pertinent part: 1.”
Natko (helen) Vs. State, 2018 NV 103 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 104× “" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 (8 --iO9(p20 and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Natko v. State (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 104× “" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 (8 --iO9(p20 and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Natko (helen) Vs. State, 2018 NV 103 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 52× “" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 (8 --iO9(p20 and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Byrd v. Lanahan, 783 P.2d 426 (Nev. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Regardless of whether NRS 100.085 or NRS 663.025 expressly contemplate Totten trusts, we find that nothing in their provisions precludes their existence.”
Sly v. Barnett, 637 P.2d 527 (Nev. 1981).
“The making of the deposit in such form shall, in the absence of fraud or undue influence, be conclusive evidence, in any action or proceeding to which either such bank or other depository, or a surviving depositor, is a party, of the intention of the depositors to vest such…”
Nevada Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Hood, 839 P.2d 1324 (Nev. 1992).
“NRS 100.085(1) provides: When a deposit has been made in the name of the depositor and one or more other persons, and in form to be paid or delivered to any one of them, or the survivor or survivors of them, the deposit is the property of the persons as joint tenants.”
Frank v. Frank, 572 P.2d 530 (Nev. 1977).
“…A virtually identical provision was reenacted by Stats, of Nev. 1977, ch. 422, p. 805 et seq., and is now codified as NRS 100.085.”
Est. of Schnack v. Comm'r, 52 T.C.M. 1107 (Tax Ct. 1986).
· cites it 2× “This statute was enacted in 1977. 1977 Nev. Stat. p. 805. Its predecessor, Nev.”
Est. of Matelich v. Matelich, 772 P.2d 319 (Nev. 1989).
“The signature card that Matelich and Malinak signed was a declaration to the bank that they would deposit only joint tenancy property in the box.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 100.085(1) — 6 cases
Walch v. State, 909 P.2d 1184 (Nev. 1996).
“00, the theft is a felony. NRS 205.0835. Walch argues that funds deposited in the two accounts became her and Nell's joint legal property and that she therefore had lawful authority to withdraw them and use *1188 them as she wished.”
Natko v. State, 435 P.3d 680 (Nev. 2018).
“" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Natko (helen) Vs. State, 2018 NV 103 (Nev. 2018).
“" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 (8 --iO9(p20 and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Natko v. State (Nev. 2018).
“" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 (8 --iO9(p20 and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Nevada Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Hood, 839 P.2d 1324 (Nev. 1992).
“NRS 100.085(1) provides: When a deposit has been made in the name of the depositor and one or more other persons, and in form to be paid or delivered to any one of them, or the survivor or survivors of them, the deposit is the property of the persons as joint tenants.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 100.085(3) — 1 case
Byrd v. Lanahan, 783 P.2d 426 (Nev. 1989).
“Regardless of whether NRS 100.085 or NRS 663.025 expressly contemplate Totten trusts, we find that nothing in their provisions precludes their existence.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 100.085(4) — 4 cases
Natko v. State, 435 P.3d 680 (Nev. 2018).
“" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Natko (helen) Vs. State, 2018 NV 103 (Nev. 2018).
“" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 (8 --iO9(p20 and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Natko v. State (Nev. 2018).
“" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 (8 --iO9(p20 and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Natko (helen) Vs. State, 2018 NV 103 (Nev. 2018).
“" We conclude this instruction is inconsistent with NRS 100.085, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 (8 --iO9(p20 and it does not accurately and completely reflect the reasoning and conclusion in Walch v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.